Talk is cheap: Cell phones hit six billion worldwide

Plenty of new phone data, including the average American spends $565 on bills.

It’s something that we all knew but perhaps didn’t fully appreciate—just about all of us have cell phones now, and we use them a lot.

According to new figures published by the International Telecommunications Union on Thursday, the global population has purchased 6 billion cellphone subscriptions. Fully a third of those, for a total of two billion, are from China and India.

As smartphone prices continue to fall, and more people have access to other data devices, the ITU also reported mobile broadband continues to rapidly grow.

“Over the past year, growth in mobile-broadband services continued at 40 percent globally and 78 percent in developing countries,” the ITU said in a statement. “There are now twice as many mobile-broadband subscriptions as fixed-broadband subscriptions worldwide.”

The ITU ranked South Korea again as the world’s “most advanced ICT economy,” adding that the average price of home Internet access has fallen 75 percent globally between 2008 and 2011, primarily in the developing world.

CTIA, the industry group for all wireless providers in America, also reported Thursday that between July 2011 and June 2012, Americans used 1.1 billion gigabytes of mobile data—an increase of 104 percent from the previous period.

The trade group reports there are more mobile phone subscriptions (322 million) than there are Americans (314 million). Of that total, 41 percent are smartphones, and 23 percent are prepaid customers.

Here in the United States, the CTIA says, Americans collectively spent 2.321 trillion minutes on the phone over the last year (a three percent increase over last year), and sent just about as many texts: 2.273 trillion (also an increase of three percent.)

One last figure that might give you pause: the average monthly cell phone bill has fallen slightly to $47.16—meaning each of us, on average, spends $566 per year on our phones.

Promoted Comments

Looking at the article, this is what they actually say (or at least what they say now, maybe it changed?):

Quote:

In the mobile sector, developing countries now account for the lion’s share of market growth. Mobile-cellular subscriptions registered continuous double-digit growth in developing country markets, for a global total of six billion mobile subscriptions by end 2011(*). Both China and India each account for around one billion subscriptions.

(*) They said "by end 2011". Elsewhere they also mention growth approaching 100%/year in some parts of the world, so the number is a lot higher now

There is a huge difference between six billion mobile phone users and six billion mobile phone subscriptions.

A lot of people who have multiple subscriptions. This is especially true in poorer parts of the world, where people will carry multiple phones (or a single phone with multiple sim cards) in order to take advantage of cheap calls within the carrier.

I have met people from asia who carry *four* phones in their bag at all times, so they can have free or at least very cheap phone calls to (and from) a particular person/group.

Hell, if we believe these figures, that only leaves a billion or so worldwide without a phone. I'd bet there are more than a billion out there that have no access to mobile phones (through a lack of mobile infrastructure, power, cost, etc.) or are incapable of using one (the very young or very elderly).

Who ever conducted this study is an idiot, I can see 6 billion phones have been sold, or maybe 6 billion active (hard maybe), there is no way in hell 6 Billion people have cell phones, there are more than 1 billion people on this planet who can barely afford food let alone cell phones...

I'm assuming this 6/7 would be from a North American survey? It looks about accurate for that, but even still seems a bit high and we haven't even factored in 3rd world countries yet..

Along the same lines, their are no women working in my department, so can I assume that no women have jobs in the world?

In the mobile sector, developing countries now account for the lion’s share of market growth. Mobile-cellular subscriptions registered continuous double-digit growth in developing country markets, for a global total of six billion mobile subscriptions by end 2011. Both China and India each account for around one billion subscriptions

Hell, if we believe these figures, that only leaves a billion or so worldwide without a phone. I'd bet there are more than a billion out there that have no access to mobile phones (through a lack of mobile infrastructure, power, cost, etc.) or are incapable of using one (the very young or very elderly).

Most of the world's population is between 15 and 64. I think most folks in that range would be capable of handling a cell phone. It's also a bit ignorant to assume that being young or elderly precludes someone from being capable of using a cell phone. They're not complicated, especially the ones that aren't touch screen.

There's also a lot of people that do live in terrible conditions, but most of the world's population lives in urban areas, which would be capable of transmitting a wireless signal.

7 billion less 6 billion cell users less 850 million chronically undernourished -- who presumably do not currently have cell phones and might rather get some rice, cooking oil, and fortified peanut butter (not to forget clean water) than a cell phone -- that seems to leave only about 150 million who have neither cell phones nor hunger.

Only 2.5% market growth potential worldwide. This could explain why they're trying so hard to jack up the prices of data plans.

Hell, if we believe these figures, that only leaves a billion or so worldwide without a phone. I'd bet there are more than a billion out there that have no access to mobile phones (through a lack of mobile infrastructure, power, cost, etc.) or are incapable of using one (the very young or very elderly).

Most of the world's population is between 15 and 64. I think most folks in that range would be capable of handling a cell phone. It's also a bit ignorant to assume that being young or elderly precludes someone from being capable of using a cell phone. They're not complicated, especially the ones that aren't touch screen.

There's also a lot of people that do live in terrible conditions, but most of the world's population lives in urban areas, which would be capable of transmitting a wireless signal.

Hell, if we believe these figures, that only leaves a billion or so worldwide without a phone. I'd bet there are more than a billion out there that have no access to mobile phones (through a lack of mobile infrastructure, power, cost, etc.) or are incapable of using one (the very young or very elderly).

Most of the world's population is between 15 and 64. I think most folks in that range would be capable of handling a cell phone. It's also a bit ignorant to assume that being young or elderly precludes someone from being capable of using a cell phone. They're not complicated, especially the ones that aren't touch screen.

There's also a lot of people that do live in terrible conditions, but most of the world's population lives in urban areas, which would be capable of transmitting a wireless signal.

Uh ... no. I agree with who you're quoting ... the figures are complete bullshit. I'm not sure how they are actually tallying up these figures but I'm going to assume they're going by inflated sales figures of device manufacturers. And there's a segment of the population (in dense urban areas) where it is not uncommon for an individual to have more than one of these devices, be it for work or for whatever reasons.

The devices are not the only obstacle to ownership. There's also reception, infrastructure, etc.

It's the same with anything, really. Figures of Facebook "users". Figures of Internet "users". They're all hyper inflated because the tallying process is relatively simple - a lot less nuanced than one would assume.

This reminds me of when a pollster got a majority of people to agree that after the auto bailouts that ownership of GM should be "given directly to the American people". Huh? How? This is another example of something that just can't be right.

Looking at the article, this is what they actually say (or at least what they say now, maybe it changed?):

Quote:

In the mobile sector, developing countries now account for the lion’s share of market growth. Mobile-cellular subscriptions registered continuous double-digit growth in developing country markets, for a global total of six billion mobile subscriptions by end 2011(*). Both China and India each account for around one billion subscriptions.

(*) They said "by end 2011". Elsewhere they also mention growth approaching 100%/year in some parts of the world, so the number is a lot higher now

There is a huge difference between six billion mobile phone users and six billion mobile phone subscriptions.

A lot of people who have multiple subscriptions. This is especially true in poorer parts of the world, where people will carry multiple phones (or a single phone with multiple sim cards) in order to take advantage of cheap calls within the carrier.

I have met people from asia who carry *four* phones in their bag at all times, so they can have free or at least very cheap phone calls to (and from) a particular person/group.

Who ever conducted this study is an idiot, I can see 6 billion phones have been sold, or maybe 6 billion active (hard maybe), there is no way in hell 6 Billion people have cell phones, there are more than 1 billion people on this planet who can barely afford food let alone cell phones...

Yes it's not right to assume 1 person per phone. But cell phone penetration is still pretty high in the developing world. It's way cheaper to build out cell phones than land lines. In a lot of countries you can get voice and text service at really low cost too, and low end phones are not super expensive. Just because you're having trouble affording food today doesn't mean you didn't have enough to get a phone last month or last year. And having a phone makes a big difference in quality of life, calling (or texting) ahead to find the conditions means you don't have to travel to get to a store that doesn't have what you need, or to look for work that isn't there, or to a market that will pay you less for your goods.

EDIT: Also, keep in mind that while we would consider it useless to have a cell phone that you had to travel 15 minutes to get reception, that's better than having to travel to your destination. Statistic is probably either total sold phones over the past N years or total active lines.

How can six out of seven have cell phones. Aren't there more babies, small children, and old people in decrepitude that would account for more of non-phone users on this planet? Not sure I am buying these numbers.

Can any American with a cell phone bill please inform me how this is possibly to be paying <$50/month for a phone? MetroPCS, or other smaller carriers? Certainly not on the big carriers (I'm on VZW personally) where the 'average' bill starts at $100 with data, for a single phone line....

I would love to know how they came to that 'conclusion', or if it's worldwide that they are speaking of at the end of the article.

Can any American with a cell phone bill please inform me how this is possibly to be paying <$50/month for a phone? MetroPCS, or other smaller carriers? Certainly not on the big carriers (I'm on VZW personally) where the 'average' bill starts at $100 with data, for a single phone line....

I would love to know how they came to that 'conclusion', or if it's worldwide that they are speaking of at the end of the article.

Not everyone has smart phones. I'm paying VZW ~$40/mo (tax and employer discount roughly cancel each other out) for a lightly used flip phone.

Also, if they're looking at per phone user vs per bill payer; family plans with feature phones are probably pushing it down a lot. Even if you end up adding extra minutes as well, the marginal cost of phones 3-N is probably under $20/month.

A lot of people who have multiple subscriptions. This is especially true in poorer parts of the world, where people will carry multiple phones (or a single phone with multiple sim cards) in order to take advantage of cheap calls within the carrier.

I have met people from asia who carry *four* phones in their bag at all times, so they can have free or at least very cheap phone calls to (and from) a particular person/group.

I'm kinda surprised at the many phones route; are multiple sim models really several times as expensive as singe sim phones?

Not everyone has smart phones. I'm paying VZW ~$40/mo (tax and employer discount roughly cancel each other out) for a lightly used flip phone.

Also, if they're looking at per phone user vs per bill payer; family plans with feature phones are probably pushing it down a lot. Even if you end up adding extra minutes as well, the marginal cost of phones 3-N is probably under $20/month.

While this is all speculatively true, I was looking more for specifics on whatever data they (the ITU, presumably) collected and analyzed for this study, to come up with the average American paying <$50/month for phone service.

Probably averaging out a single, small sample size does not make their statements irrevocably true. Hence, all this is speculative relative to the given statement.

DanNeely wrote:

I'm kinda surprised at the many phones route; are multiple sim models really several times as expensive as singe sim phones?

I think he was referring to the ease at which you can buy multiple SIM cards, and a single compatible phone, and swap them (SIM cards) out based on carrier, or minutes, or some other metric that makes it cheaper to use for a specific call.

Looking at the article, this is what they actually say (or at least what they say now, maybe it changed?):

Quote:

In the mobile sector, developing countries now account for the lion’s share of market growth. Mobile-cellular subscriptions registered continuous double-digit growth in developing country markets, for a global total of six billion mobile subscriptions by end 2011(*). Both China and India each account for around one billion subscriptions.

(*) They said "by end 2011". Elsewhere they also mention growth approaching 100%/year in some parts of the world, so the number is a lot higher now

There is a huge difference between six billion mobile phone users and six billion mobile phone subscriptions.

A lot of people who have multiple subscriptions. This is especially true in poorer parts of the world, where people will carry multiple phones (or a single phone with multiple sim cards) in order to take advantage of cheap calls within the carrier.

I have met people from asia who carry *four* phones in their bag at all times, so they can have free or at least very cheap phone calls to (and from) a particular person/group.

I'm probably one of the Asians you refer to as I use a smartphone, a low cost feature phone and have local and international sim cards.

But there is a counter-arguement I have to make, which is that in most developing countries, the average number of human users per account is quite a bit higher than 1.00 and could be greater than 1.50 particularly in poor areas of China, India and South Asia where many phones are shared by families or even villages, or used as Payphones, so the actual number of users worldwide might be greater than the number of accounts.

I think what we can fairly state is:

- accounts are not users- we don't have reliable data on users

It would not surprise me if the number of users is 1 billion more than the number of accounts.

Can any American with a cell phone bill please inform me how this is possibly to be paying <$50/month for a phone? MetroPCS, or other smaller carriers? Certainly not on the big carriers (I'm on VZW personally) where the 'average' bill starts at $100 with data, for a single phone line....

I would love to know how they came to that 'conclusion', or if it's worldwide that they are speaking of at the end of the article.

How? There are LOTS of options besides the big-4, depending on your usage. Granted, if you are going to do 5 GB/month, 10K messages and 1K minutes, it's hard to get much cheaper than $50/month. Especially if you REQUIRE access at all times, the latest phones cheap, etc.

If you're willing to sit down and assess your needs HONESTLY and make an informed decision, you can easily get away with less than $100/month.

For example: for years, my wife and I were happy with Tracfone. Just feature phones to make basic calls, send a few texts, and surf 1-5 times/month for brief periods just to look up something quickly. We used around 100 minutes/month, so even with the occasional web surfing, our cost was around $10/month for me, $5-10/month for her.

Lately, decided to be a little more "adventurous" and try www.ting.com, right before I found out that I would get getting a free phone from work. So, now my wife has a feature (qwerty candybar) phone from ting (aka sprint) and pays around $20/month depending on usage. Ting charges more or less each month depending on usage. If you are a low user, say 100 minutes, 100 messages, no data, you can get a monthly bill around $12/month + surcharges. For 500 minutes, 1000 messages no data, it's $20/month + surcharges. 100 MB/month = $3. 500 MB = $13, etc.. If you have multiple lines, you can SHARE data, and it's even cheaper per phone (that was the plan before I found out I'm getting a phone from work). Ting is all based on Sprint. I believe voice roams, data doesn't (don't quote me on that). Not bad. My wife's really getting into the texting/emailing thing (friends and work). Helps her to keep up when driving. You do have to buy your phone, though. Ting has various Android phones (incl. SG3). No iphones.

Virgin Mobile USA is another Sprint MVNO, $35/month, IIRC, for more-or-less-unlimited use of Sprint's network. But, IIRC, no roaming of data OR voice. Was interested in this one for quite a while. I think Ting fits our needs better (roaming of voice, just in case we need it - data is optional for us). VMUSA has iphone4 (maybe 4s?), and some older Androids, IIRC.

As I said: if you don't NEED a ton of data/minutes and/or the best/latest/coolest phone, you CAN do better than $50/month and don't need to spend anywhere NEAR $100/month.

Unfortunately, the American mindset is often "buy more, JUST IN CASE". That's why a lot of people buy a big car/truck for those 2 weeks every 5-7 years when they move and need to haul a lot of stuff: "JUST IN CASE" (nothing against those of you who need trucks for work).

Anyway - do your research. There are a LOT of ways to save money if you're willing to not be the coolest kid on your block.